Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #section230

Most recents (24)

1/ "I haven't educated myself at all on the details of this, but allow me to stake my point on it anyway" is not exactly the sign of a thoughtful person.

But it *is* a good sign you're about to get a bad #Section230 take.

pvtimes.com/opinion/tim-bu…
2/ "Dictatorships, socialism, and communism rely on control of the media, and therefore it is bad that this multitude of private, non-governmental companies have control over their own platforms" is certainly one possible stupid thing you could say.
3/ And then there's this dumb non-sequitur.

Repealing Section 230 would not create new causes of action. If your beef is that social media companies can control what you see and whether you're allowed to post--repealing Section 230 would do absolutely nothing to address that.
Read 9 tweets
NEW: Amazon has filed its reply to Parler's lawsuit, listing more than a dozen examples of what it said was violent content on Parler that violated AWS's terms.

Amazon also invokes #Section230, making this a high-profile test of the law Trump despises.

pacermonitor.com/view/LHNWTAI/P…
The examples Amazon cites includes calls for a civil war and the deaths of Democratic lawmakers as well as that of tech CEOs including Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey; members of professional sports leagues; DOT Sec Elaine Chao; and US Capitol Police, among others.
For antitrust nerds, Amazon argues Parler's antitrust allegations don't meet the threshold for a Sherman Act claim, because the complaint doesn't define a relevant market nor how competition was harmed.
Read 4 tweets
Anyone sane wants to see less of the kind of content that led to the storming of the Capitol

#Section230 may be unsatisfying but it plays a vital role: protecting sites’ 1A right to take down content gov't can’t ban, eg misinformation & (most) incitement
protocol.com/we-need-sectio…
The storming of the Capitol should make clear once and for all why all major tech services ban hate speech, misinformation and talk of violence: Words can have serious consequences — in this case, five deaths (plus a Capitol officer’s suicide days later).
The MAGA crowd is crying "censorship," conveniently forgetting (or more likely disingenuously abandoning) all of the First Amendment and free market arguments it has wielded in the past against people who they don't agree with
Read 14 tweets
1/ I wonder if Donald Trump and his supporters will reconsider their antipathy toward #Section230 in light of recent events.
2/ As the controversy over the tech giants cracking down in @parler_app demonstrates, if Trump and his supporters want a free-for-all social media platform like Parler, that platform will want and need #Section230-type protection.
3/ Under #Section230 as it currently stands, Parler generally isn’t responsible, at least in a court of law, for third-party/user-generated content.
Read 22 tweets
A few points to keep in mind re: tonight's Trump Twitter news.

- The First Amendment, not #Section230, allows Twitter and other interactive computer services to moderate and remove content.
- There is no distinction between "platforms" and "publishers" under 230
- Twitter is nothing like a "public forum." Not even close. Look up Marsh v. Alabama.
- Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are no "monopolies." They are competitors.
- Trump and his allies have many services to choose from when it comes to communicating on the Internet
- You'll see arguments floating around about how Section 230 is outdated and/or being abused. Fortunately, the two authors of the bill are still alive and have been vocal about its meaning and the intent behind its drafting.
Read 4 tweets
With the @WhiteHouse as the backdrop, @POTUS about to take the stage at the #SaveAmericaMarch. Image
As 'God Bless the USA' plays, @POTUS now on stage. Image
"We have hundreds of thousands of people here," claims @realDonaldTrump. "These people are not going to take it any longer. Turn your cameras please."
Read 33 tweets
.@60Minutes highlighting the double standard that exists in media due to #section230: Google, Twitter, & Facebook have a congressionally granted, judicially enhanced immunity that cable news, newspapers, & other 1A actors do not have.

Some of us call that a subsidy. 👀
“Terrorizing someone is not free speech.” Shouldn’t be controversial. Except it’s protected behavior on social media, thanks to the judicial interpretation of Sec 230. buzzfeednews.com/article/tylerk…
Justice Clarence Thomas recently made heads explode all over Washington and Silicon Valley when he suggested that lower courts have stretched 230’s immunity beyond its textual basis. nationalreview.com/news/clarence-…
Read 4 tweets
A THREAD: Why is Mitch McConnell holding up $2000 checks that people desperately need over #Section230? Normally this is where we'd say “it’s complicated” but honestly “it’s baffling” is a better fit. (1)
Let’s start with what it is. The key part of #Section230 is 26 words.

It says:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (2)
Trump and his supporters have gotten it in their heads that repealing #Section230 will protect conservative speech online. (It won’t.)

Others are eager to hold tech companies accountable for their failures to stop disinformation and hate & see this as a pathway. (It won’t.) (3)
Read 7 tweets
“I folded like a plastic chair in a california inferno. Good news!”

Who has the power to make you pull your pants down in public but to also make you think that people see it as you lifting weights?

Do you know you are a fool but just pretend otherwise or do you think you won?
Trump is taking you on a ride; dumb idiots. Press releases have no legal power in Congress; morons.

Hey clowns. Remember how Sessions was going t blow up the 2016 abusers? Then Huber? Then Barr? They are all gone! Durham in 19 months has little to show.

Wake up; zombies.
The House/Senate may vote on more funds upping it from $600/head, but Trump is mentioning promises that the Senate made to him about alleged election fraud and social media companies, and that he blocked parts of the bill.

No justice is coming. It’s all a clown show.
Read 7 tweets
🚨🚨🚨
Supreme Court Certiorari (full doc)
Fyk vs. Facebook
Docket #20-632
🚨🚨🚨
We MUST be heard!
#Section230
#FYKs230

@realDonaldTrump
@tedcruz
@HawleyMO
@LindseyGrahamSC
@dbongino
@DavidJHarrisJr
@marklevinshow
@tracybeanz
@Jim_Jordan
@TulsiGabbard
@TuckerCarlson Image
ImageImageImageImage
ImageImageImageImage
Read 11 tweets
Today: Congress votes on the defense authorization bill. Among its many provisions, when passed, it ensures that members of the US mil. receive special pay, i.e. bonuses. Pres. Trump has threatened to veto if passed prompting many lawmakers to say they'll override.
Why would he threaten to veto a bipartisan bill that has routinely passed for years? As Trump tells it: it includes a line renaming Army facilities named after Confed. ofcrs & because it *doesn't* include a repeal of a law holding tech/social media liable for whats posted online
If Trump vetoes, the wheels are put in motion for an override before Christmas. I will break down more of what is in the bill - and what isn't - later today for @CourthouseNews. Stay tuned.
#NDAA #Section230
Read 22 tweets
I've been wondering: Why rush Simington onto the FCC (with just 5 months of telecom experience) if Pai doesn't have time to vote out a #Section230 order anyway?

I now think the FCC could, and likely will, vote out an order without further comment on January 13

Here's why...
Even most telecom lawyers assume FCC actions fall into two buckets:

1) rulemakings follow NPRMs and public comment and aren't final until published in the Federal Register

There isn't time for an NPRM/comments and the Biden FCC could block publication in the FedReg anyway
2) Declaratory orders can resolve adjudicatory disputes, but are only binding on the parties to the proceeding, which won't do what the Administration (NTIA) has asked the FCC to do here

But there's actually a third category that the FCC does have time to use here...
Read 23 tweets
Several of you have sent me the below NYT article (thank you for flagging). I just finished reading it and I do have some thoughts regarding the points made about content moderation and #Section230. 🧵

nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opi…
First, there's a credibility issue here. The author of this article was one of #SESTAFOSTA's most vocal proponents. Talk to anyone in the sex work community -- they'll tell you the amount of damage/harm FOSTA has caused (deaths included). techdirt.com/articles/20181…
I don't intend this thread to be a primer on FOSTA, but here are some results:
--elimination of legitimate adult content from sites like Tumblr/Reddit
--destruction of sex work support communities
--blind moderation: sites are less likely to seek out and remove harmful content.
Read 15 tweets
Quando capiranno tutti perché Pornhub è gratis...

"Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags."
nytimes.com/2020/12/04/opi…
"A search for “girls under18” (no space) or “14yo” leads in each case to more than 100,000 videos. Most aren’t of children being assaulted, but too many are.

After a 15-year-old girl went missing in Florida, her mother found her on Pornhub — in 58 sex videos."
Because it’s impossible to be sure whether a youth in a video is 14 or 18, neither Pornhub nor anyone else has a clear idea of how much content is illegal.
Read 17 tweets
Our lame-duck president is having another tantrum over social media that fact-check his lies. His latest rant targets the National Defense Authorization Act, which he says must now include a repeal of #Section230 protections that grant platforms the right to correct the record.
This latest tirade is more of the same from a president who's deeply confused & angry about a rule that protects the constitutional rights of platforms. In Trumpworld they should be servile agents for amplifying his false propaganda about the election result & the COVID response.
Since this attack began @FreePress has put forth a number of explanations about #Section230, hoping to bring clarity to a policy issue that has divided and befuddled far too many:
Read 10 tweets
They invoked the magic words "sex trafficking" & made a special Section 230 carve out....

And most people in media & tech policy were OK with it bc they a) are cowards who will never question anything about "trafficking" & b) don't care about & didn't listen to sex workers
There were about six people in tech & media saying HEY FOSTA IS A TEST CASE. BACKPAGE IS A TEST CASE. But even @TechFreedom was like "Well, if we just let them shit on Backpage and on sex workers, maybe they'll leave Section 230 alone otherwise...."
It was a cowardly, immoral bargain and also an incredibly naive & foolish assessment of the gov't & tech landscape. And they were all clearly and very very very very wrong.
Read 5 tweets
What is Section 230?

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, is a law that protects online platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter from being held liable for content generated by users, in the way newspapers are liable for articles they publish.

#Section230 Image
Section 230 also allows social platforms, so long as they act in "good faith," to moderate their services by removing content that is offensive or "objectionable."

However, it does not shield from liability for copyright violations or certain types of criminal acts. #Section230 Image
In the early days of the internet, site owners were being sued by high-profile companies to suppress criticism.

One famous lawsuit was against the online service Prodigy, which was found liable by the court for allegedly defamatory comments by a user. Politicians worried such... Image
Read 6 tweets
Can't wait to hear @LindseyGrahamSC, the guy who urged Georgia's Secretary of State to throw out Democratic votes, accuse #BigTech of trying to steal the election 🤣

Watch this thread for more debunking of GOP nonsense about free speech and #Section230
"I don't want the government to have the power to decide what content stays up"
-@LindseyGrahamSC

No, he just wants to amend #Section230 to enable, especially, for Republican hack state AGs to sue websites for removing hate speech, misinformation, voter suppression, etc
Content moderation involves difficult trade-offs that we think are better resolved through the democratic process
- Mark Zuckerberg

Um, no, the First Amendment bars the government from making decisions about online speech

No, you can't just "leave it up to Congress"
Read 39 tweets
Here I am, awake in the early morning to watch @LindseyGrahamSC hold a hearing on "suppression and the 2020 election" a day after it was revealed that *he* was demanding Georgia's Secretary of State throw out *legal* votes. The hearing's not about Graham, though, but "big tech."
And we're off with @LindseyGrahamSC misrepresenting #Section230 (though not as badly as I expected). Followed by "think of the children!" moral panic stuff about kids using social media a lot.
Graham is all over the place. It's like a random unconnected and misleading series of grievances.
Read 140 tweets
Okay readers please send help because in this THREAD I will be semi-live tweeting today's hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee where lawmakers like Lindsey Graham will pretend to care about things like free speech and Big Tech abuses while showboating about the election
Live video for the hearing hasn't started yet, so quickly here's what to expect. Republicans will yell about specific moderation decisions, spread baseless claims of bias, and talk a lot about Hunter Biden's laptop. Democrats will mostly argue platforms don't moderate enough.
And we're off. Graham is working on a world record for the most @BadSec230Takes in one sentence. He just incorrectly stated the way Section 230 liability protections work. In fact, Section 230 *does* protect individuals from liability for, for example, retweeting Lindsey Graham
Read 71 tweets
Happy tech CEOs hearing day (again)!
As we wait for Senate Judiciary to kick things off at 10 ET, let’s look at Airbnb’s IPO filing.

There, the company cites possible changes to #Section230 as a risk factor for investors. sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
For those just joining, you can watch the proceedings here: judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/break…
Read 35 tweets
Trump’s FCC nominee Nathan Simington acknowledges he played a “minor” role in drafting and preparing the Trump administration’s petition to the FCC to “clarify” #Section230.

Sen. Cruz asks if he thinks the FCC rulemaking should move forward. “Senator, I do,” Simington says.
If confirmed, Simington would thus be in a position to oversee a proceeding that he helped ask for while in the Trump administration.

Sen. Blumenthal asks if Simington would recuse himself. Simington says it’s “premature” to say but that he would consult the FCC ethics office.
Blumenthal, in his opening remarks, said Simington’s nomination — and Trump’s tweet earlier today urging a swift confirmation — raises concerns that “you have been sent to the FCC on a mission to execute” Trump’s social media executive order.
Read 5 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!